Jamesyar, you do read the economist i suppose where the they quoted the total economy of the NHS is 1/5th of thier total economy...and the US system is proported to be by event the Democrats as 1/6th of their economy, you may know that 1/5th is bigger than 1/6th of the same whole, but of course the whole of the US is much larger, so..... that is why i quoted a ratio. Get it...you're wrong.

Since i posted that comment we learned that a Canadian Minister is having his scheduled heart surgery in the United States. And the man was one of the original proponents of the Canadian disaster with nationalized health.

Told you so. It's a total hoax that national governments can or even know how to deliver quality health care to a nation.

Just John 'Despite the miserable professionalism and death panel standards in the UK, their costs are greater than ours by a long shot and the carry an incredibly bloated governement organization that operates the whole thing.'

Total nonsense, from what can only be inspired by Fox News propaganda. The UK NHS costs around 40% of the US system, and achieves an increased lifespan of nearly 2 years.

The US healthcare system is well known as the sick joke of the modern world. This fact will not change despite the lying and obfuscating of the xenophobic, jingoistic US right wing.

'Sarah Palin was right' No, she is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Levy, i know firsthand the horrible so called health care systems of both Canada and the UK, in the latter case undiagnosed cancer because of screening age requirements nearly killed my wife who was detected immediately in US care, and close friends who flew their children from distant places in Canada to the US for simple surgeries were proof enough to me that those social health care systems are broken and don't. work. Oh, by the way, the reason they left Canada, to have the surgery performed in the US is because they considered the Canadian care incompetent, unsanitary, and equiped with outdated tools and services and ignorant physicians. My friends were in the emergency medical care field on exchange service.

Despite the miserable professionalism and death panel standards in the UK, their costs are greater than ours by a long shot and the carry an incredibly bloated governement organization that operates the whole thing. Beyond incompetent I do know that in my profession, all Canadians I have worked with, opt for care in the US wher they pay for the service through their employers.

Sadly, I have Canadian friends who were misdiagnosed with cancer for years, ultimately the only thing they were offered was death counseling.

Newphilo, the difference between a natural right and civil right, is essentially an act of statute law. Natural rights are unalienable, and civil rights are not. Read Madison to help further understand the difference. The founding fathers agreed that education provided by the government was not a natural right, rather just something they should do. Even though to a person they agreed that it was something a government (their government alone, since no other did at the time) should provide.

The general welfare clause is not an entitlement to anything, rather a partial statement of the purpose of government. Really need to read Hobbs to understand this distinction.

TwoGunChuck: While not denying that filibustering gives protection against ramming bills through your analysis of European politics is inaccurate. Firstly many European countries have stable governments. The UK, France, Germany, Ireland, and Switzerland all make that list. Italy doesn't. Stability usually depends on the number of parties and has nothing to do with whether you need a super-majority to rule or not. In Britain we have a very stable system and yet both Labour and the Conservatives have ruled after only gaining under 40% of the vote. Basically this comes from having a first past the post system (as America does) and so the smaller parties struggle to win seats. In some mainland European countries you need to a much larger percentage of the vote to form a government because you need to form a coalition. This can lead to instability.
Additionally unlike many European countries there is not a way in the US of forcing a new election (even if the President were impeached the VP would take over).

The filibuster rule its not an argument about stability but about legislative movement. For the record I think in a country as large as the US it is a relatively good rule but requires it not to be abused, and in many of the European countries (Britain, France and Germany among others spring to mind) their systems are also pretty good ones.

"Can someone please explain to this European why in the States it needs 6 out of 10 senators to approve of change rather than the normal 5-and-a-bit?"

Yes. Same reason we require a unanimous verdict for conviction in criminal cases and a vote by 3/4 of the state legislatures to change the constitution. We think that measures passed by bare majorities are likely to be ill-considered and unwise. Given the stability of the U.S. government and the instability of European governments, it seems to me that Europeans might want to think a little more about the desirability of supermajorities.

At this point, the best strategy is to scuttle the bill and let the health care system go down. Hospitals will be going BK and the ERs will be overwhelmed with indigent, uninsured sick people. Health insurance premiums will become unaffordable for all but the elite.

The political system in the USA is seriously broken. Politicians cannot deal with a problem until they are eyeball-to-eyeball with the alligator.

The kernel problem that health reform has is selfishness: if the least insurable 30 million go to the dogs, and another 70 million are reduced to penury, ill health and early death, that leaves 200 million of the wealthier, healthier and luckier much better off.

Yes AnnaFr,
to have such broad based party, its leaders are forced to think for themselves, and have sufficient intellect to understand those elements which does make up a well balanced and healthy society which offers opportunity for as many constituencies as possible.

This is a hard work, which not many in US are willing to put the effort into it.

But you see, in US, the level of our political conversations has been reduced to the level of grammer school. Instead of meaningful conversations on matters important to all (i.e. Health care reform, etc) we use Labels ("Liberal", "Neo-con", "Tax & Spend", "Borrow & Spend", "Left", "right", "black", "white" etc). Empty slogans, 30 sec TV Ads, where intellectually bankrupt candidates get elected because he has shit-load of money to spend, not the one who has the better idea for the country.

Now, we have our Supreme Court which at time, it seems to act more as a 3rd political branch of the government then judiciary system at it highest integrity, they just opened the gate to the most and best "free of speech" money can buy. Great.

yep. While I don't doubt your sincerity, I also wonder for every Canadian like you, how many other ones who would have the exact opposite opinion then yours. Have you tried asking the French, Norwegians, German, and the Japanese, what do they think about their respective health care systems.? You would be very surprised to learn that, based on shared responsibilities by all (which pundits in US call "Socialized Services"), they don't mind to wait a day or two for their turn to be treated for non-emergency procedures.

Since the main opposition to healthcare reform comes from the likes of Sen. Mitch McConnell. As an American citizen, all I am asking is to have the same level of health care security as my elected officials in congress have - paid for (thank you very much) by my tax money.

Senators like Mitch McConnell and his family do enjoy first class health care services in this country - YET, religiously he objects to have the same for those who voted for him into office?. ha?.

I have just returned to Canada from Florida and was very disturbed by some of the discussions we had about Canadian health care.
Before Americans opt for the Canadian system, come up here and see what we have.I am sure you would not want for this system.

As I see it you have a problem with about 10 or 15 percent of your population who are not covered by a health insurance.Fix this but do not destroy the best system in the world to achieve this.

The misconception that a part of the American population does not get health care is wrong. You have county hospitals which are not up to Mayo standards but come to Canada and see what we have. All of our hospitals are county hospitals and the level of care is about the standard of your county or welfare system.

You also have laws laws do not allow hospitals to deny emergency services.

>> What our great county of US needs, is a new 3rd party. With centrist ideology of Pro-Business, pro-labor and pro-consumer.

Ha ha ha. That's right, we need a new party that's pro-everybody ... a party that's all things to all people ... a party that can act in everyone's interests regardless of whether those interests conflict ... a party that can eat cake and have it too ... a magical unicorn party made of caramel and gum drops.

If you're an American high school student who is good at memorizing then you should aspire to be a surgeon\specialist. There is no other career that offers more money with more respect and less risk of failure than surgeon/specialist. "Medicine will be socialized and doctors work such long hours," one may argue. These were the same arguments that discouraged me from pursuing medicine thirty years ago when Carter was presiding over yet-another attempt to bring healthcare costs\coverage under control. Today, my anesthesiologist neighbor works 45 hours\week (including travel time) and earns $350k/year salaried (the hospital pays all expenses including professional development and malpractice premiums). All of his student loans were paid off by the hospital on his first day of work. In thirty years, I predict the dominance of "doctor" as an ideal profession will be as negatively affected by this attempt at healthcare reform as the last three attempts (the first of which started with Nixon).

What reason is there to think that the Republicans have any interest in helping salvage a bill when their declared objective has been to turn it into Obama's Waterloo?

'Tis the season to toss in a tort-reform sop and cram the behemoth down a weary legislature's throat. January's chickens would be surprised at how easy it turned out to be to morph into November's roosters. Nothing succeeds like success, or at least claimng it.